TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The day King George was crowned (death of Habeus Corpus)
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »
The day King George was crowned (death of Habeus Corpus)
Why is everyone so apathetic about this major and shameful event?
I watched the signing before I left for work yesterday. It made me sad. I don't really have apathy, but more frustration with both my government and a good portion of the people in this country.
HOW IS THIS NOT GETTING MORE ATTENTION IN HERE?>
WTF WTF WTF.
I lurk in here a bit and this should be a zillion pages long by not. WTF
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Allied Nations HOW IS THIS NOT GETTING MORE ATTENTION IN HERE?> WTF WTF WTF. I lurk in here a bit and this should be a zillion pages long by not. WTF |
I'll tell ya why PEOPLE DON'T CARE/KNOW to give a shit .
Not the reply your looking for? ask any neocon what they think, hint--- "they are only looking out for the US..."
The USA has become "land of the sheep" , anybody care to dispute this? No? The so-called Republicans still haven't faced the fact that whats running the country isn't a "Republican"
-wikipedia.
Republicans have a strong belief in personal responsibility, limited government.
Funny how where the country is now isn't anything "Republican".
HOMELAND SECURITY.... the biggest pile of crap ever laidout AND taken in by the USA people. So much for smaller gov. NO?
FOX NEWS says its best for the country thus the sheep buy into it.
You should see how my visits to a buddy whos older brother belives EVERYTHING that BUSH says.Ever do any reading into the British Airplane Terrorist Arrest?? No ?
START HERE:Binary liquid explosives
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/0...labs/print.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/articl...2306994,00.html
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/08/
I'll let you in- it was bullshit!
As posted on many forums! proven by anybody with 1st yr collage chem. The English press got many chemist/labs to attempt the so-called plan and cameback saying yes its possible but VERY UNLIKELY! it would take hrs to do under lab.condtions and what the fuck do you say to the people about the smell? how do you control the temps? how do you dry the crystals? how do you telll the people onboard that the smell/fumes is normal, in short it was bullshit,.
The country is going down and anybody whos thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.I can't even begin on where to start,
and yet the neocons here will tell ya its in for our own good.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Allied Nations HOW IS THIS NOT GETTING MORE ATTENTION IN HERE?> WTF WTF WTF. I lurk in here a bit and this should be a zillion pages long by not. WTF |
^^^ Here:
The day America died and Dictatorship was born: Habeas Corpus, R.I.P. (1215 - 2006)
I brought this up a few weeks ago. Just take a look at the responses. Very disappointing to say the least.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Whatever the magna carta/constitution/bill of rights is so pre 9/11. |
FYI the bill's definition for enemy combatant:
(1) UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT- (A) The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means an individual determined by or under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense--
`(i) to be part of or affiliated with a force or organization (including al Qaeda, the Taliban, any international terrorist organization, or associated forces) that is engaged in hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents in violation of the law of war;
`(ii) to have committed a hostile act in aid of such a force or organization so engaged; or
`(iii) to have supported hostilities in aid of such a force or organization so engaged.
Hmmmm so the President or Secdef have the authority to say you're adiing terrorists and therefore you're an "unlawful enemy combatant"?
Some other gems from the bill:
* Certain sections of the Uniform Code of Military Justice are deemed inapplicable - including some relating to a speedy trial [Sec.948b (d)(1)(A)], compulsory self-incrimination [Sec.948b (d)(1)(B)], and pre-trial investigation [Sec.948b (d)(1)(C)].
* A civilian defense attorney may not be used unless they have clearance to view materials classified Secret. [Sec.949c(b)(3)(D)]
* Based on his findings, the judge may introduce hearsay evidence [Sec.949a(b)(2)(E)(i)], evidence obtained without a search warrant [Sec.949a(b)(2)(B)], evidence obtained when the degree of coercion is disputed [Sec.948r (d)], or classified evidence not made available to the defense [Sec.949d(f)(2)(B)].
* A finding of Guilty requires only a 2/3 majority [Sec.949m(a)]
* No defendant may invoke the Geneva Conventions in legal proceedings on their behalf. [Section 5(a)]
* The President determines �the meaning and application� of the Geneva Conventions banning the torture of prisoners. [Sec.6 (a)(3)(A)]
* The accused may be tried for the same offense a second time �with his consent� [Sec.949h(a)].
* If the military commission returns a finding of Not Guilty, its convening authority is not required to take action on the findings. [Sec.950b(c)(3)]
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Please tell me you're being sarcastic. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider * A finding of Guilty requires only a 2/3 majority [Sec.949m(a)] |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider * The accused may be tried for the same offense a second time �with his consent� [Sec.949h(a)]. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider What is wrong with you? |
for a second there (and because I wouldn't never expect you of all people here to say that with a serious tone ).
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN are you kidding me? |
Habeus Corpus, now free speech.
| quote: |
WHAT IS THE (AETA) THE ANIMAL ENTERPRISE TERRORISM ACT ? The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) is a bill which seeks to amend the 1992 Animal Enterprise Protection Act (AEPA - PL 102-346), a section under Title 18 of the criminal code which protects animal enterprises from illegal acts comitted by animal activists. The AETA bill (S 3880) recently passed in the Senate on Sept. 30th, 2006, was introduced by Mr. Inhofe (R-OK), Mrs. Feinstein (D-CA), Mr. Thune (R-SD), and Mr. Isakson (R-GA). Its counter-part is currently pending in the House (H.R. 4239) and will be voted on sometime in November after congress reconvenes from recess on November 9th. WHY AETA IS NOT GOOD FOR US � AETA risks having a chilling effect on First Amendment protected speech for everyone including law abiding citizens, who risk being tarnished a terrorist even if wrongfully charged. On the chance that a law-abiding citizen wins his/her case, the damage to their reputation will already be done. Appeals often take years. � Anyone engaging in non-violent civil disobedience causing at least $10,000 profit loss, will be considered a terrorist. If this were law at the turn of the 20th century, the suffragettes, notably Susan B. Anthony, as well as, civil rights leaders including Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, and Mahatma Ghandi, may have been labelled terrorists. � AETA risks punishing content based speech. � AETA would foster a slippery slope and a precedent by which to target other content-based speech as terrorism or target any unfavorable group as terrorists. � AETA risks singling out animal advocates for penalties that are harsher than for other felonies. � Laws penalizing tort, harassment, etc. already exist and the bills' additional penalties are unnecessary. � The bills' exemptions would not be an adequate defense against being wrongfully arrested or charged, and do not resolve ambiguities in the bills or the chilling effect on protected free speech. � AETA risks further frustrating protected free speech rights that calls attention to the government's failure to enforce the Animal Welfare Act. There are no similarly harsh penalties against animal enterprises that are in gross violation of the AWA, or that act with depraved indifference or with intent to do harm. SUMMARY We believe that the true purpose of AETA , is to severely chill AR activism by intimidating those who would legally protest, and as such attempts to prevent the loss of profit to corporations and businesses -special interest groups (who see the ever swelling tsunami of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare consciousness) heading right their way. We further believe that there are sufficient laws already on the books to accomodate any and all illegal activist activities. As an example, Surely, we do not advocate threat, vandalism, and bodily injury, but why should any sector of society receive special treatment and consideration under the law from threat, vandalism and bodily harm moreso than any other sector? The justice system has already successfully prosecuted cases using existing law and we maintain that AETA isnot only uneccessary but will have a stigmatic and chilling effect on our first amendment rights to free speech, preventing individuals from exercising their right to protest, under the constitution, for fear of being unjustly labeled and prosecuted as a terrorist. The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act is in all likelihood not constitutional and needs to be stopped now before it becomes law. The Senate passed S 3880 in the 'wee hours' of 09/30/06 and the House is next in line to vote sometime after November 9th. Don't sell out your rights to corporate America! Let your voice be heard! |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Habeus Corpus, now free speech. StopAETA.org EDIT: They also have links to the bill here: DOWNLOAD HOUSE BILL 4239 IN PDF FORMAT DOWNLOAD SENATE BILL S3880 IN PDF FORMAT |
To anyone really concerned about how scary this new Military Tribual act is, check out this case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3...ed_terrorist%29
Are any of you lefties in here concerned about your safety? First of all the thread maker puts a video of Keith Olbermann show...Oh I wonder what he will say about this issue. If you guys are so open minded about this subject why are you in the extreme of it. Do you ever take the good cases of this. Give us some reaons that what not arresting suspected terrorist is a good thing? You guys actually believe that there are people in desks looking at names of people and going "yes, i want to arrest him", even though he is innocent. What are they achieving by that? They cant all possibly share Bush's evil neocon mind.
I hear the same people reply to the same topics and franklly you are all a bunch of lefties that think that anything Bush does is wrong. I do not hear Democrats come up with great solutions to fix our problems in the world, all I hear is that they want to withdraw from Iraq, and by doing that the world will be safer. Every source in here is a mans opinion, it just sucks that you idiots believe most of the crap that is given to you.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Kapedan Are any of you lefties in here concerned about your safety? First of all the thread maker puts a video of Keith Olbermann show...Oh I wonder what he will say about this issue. If you guys are so open minded about this subject why are you in the extreme of it. Do you ever take the good cases of this. Give us some reaons that what not arresting suspected terrorist is a good thing? You guys actually believe that there are people in desks looking at names of people and going "yes, i want to arrest him", even though he is innocent. What are they achieving by that? They cant all possibly share Bush's evil neocon mind. I hear the same people reply to the same topics and franklly you are all a bunch of lefties that think that anything Bush does is wrong. I do not hear Democrats come up with great solutions to fix our problems in the world, all I hear is that they want to withdraw from Iraq, and by doing that the world will be safer. Every source in here is a mans opinion, it just sucks that you idiots believe most of the crap that is given to you. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Kapedan Are any of you lefties in here concerned about your safety? First of all the thread maker puts a video of Keith Olbermann show...Oh I wonder what he will say about this issue. If you guys are so open minded about this subject why are you in the extreme of it. Do you ever take the good cases of this. Give us some reaons that what not arresting suspected terrorist is a good thing? You guys actually believe that there are people in desks looking at names of people and going "yes, i want to arrest him", even though he is innocent. What are they achieving by that? They cant all possibly share Bush's evil neocon mind. I hear the same people reply to the same topics and franklly you are all a bunch of lefties that think that anything Bush does is wrong. I do not hear Democrats come up with great solutions to fix our problems in the world, all I hear is that they want to withdraw from Iraq, and by doing that the world will be safer. Every source in here is a mans opinion, it just sucks that you idiots believe most of the crap that is given to you. |
who believes in the bill of rights or the court system to affect justice. If the government has good reason for its actions, there's no reason why it wouldn't hold up in court. But I'm sure you can tell us why there's a good reason to reduce accountability, checks and balances for the government, and personal liberties otherwise you wouldn't have made such an asinine argument right?
Freedom of speech/expression = terrorism
| quote: |
Does Tee Stand For Terrorist? NYC Student Stopped on Staten Island Ferry For Wearing T-Shirt Saying �We Will Not Be Silent� in Arabic Hunter College student Stephanie Schwartz says Coast Guard officials stopped her two weeks ago aboard the ferry. During the summer, Iraqi blogger Raed Jarrar was stopped by security officials for wearing the same t-shirt at JFK Airport. He was forced to change the shirt before boarding a JetBlue flight. [includes rush transcript] Later today a protest will take place at the Staten Island Ferry in New York city. Recently, a woman riding the ferry was stopped, surrounded and questioned by U.S. Coast Guard officials. She was wearing a T-shirt that had Arabic print on it. It read "We Will Not Be Silent." The student was Stephanie Schwartz -- and she joins me now here in our Firehouse studio. Raed Jarrar is still with us from Washington DC. A few months ago Raed was wearing a similar t-shirt as he was boarding a JetBlue airways flight at Kennedy airport in New York. Airport officials forced him to change his T-Shirt before getting on the plane. We left a message with the Coast Guard public affairs office but did not hear back from them. * Stephanie Schwartz, Hunter College Student who was recently stopped by Coast Guard officials for wearing T-shirt with Arabic writing * Raed Jarrar, an Iraqi blogger and architect. His blog "Raed in the Middle" is at raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com. Raed is Iraq Project Director for Global Exchange. Rush transcript: AMY GOODMAN: The woman was Stephanie Schwartz. She joins us in the studio now. Hi, welcome to Democracy Now! STEPHANIE SCHWARTZ: Thanks. AMY GOODMAN: You�re a student here in New York? STEPHANIE SCHWARTZ: Yeah, I�m a student at Hunter College. AMY GOODMAN: And tell us exactly what happened and when it happened. STEPHANIE SCHWARTZ: Sure. Two weeks ago, I got on the Staten Island Ferry. It was a Monday morning, and I was wearing this t-shirt. AMY GOODMAN: And for our radio listeners, what does it say? STEPHANIE SCHWARTZ: It says, �We will not be silent,� both in Arabic and then in English. And as soon as my friends and I sat down on the ferry, four Coast guard -- armed Coast Guard officers came and, you know, positioned themselves around us and -- you know, a lot of times on the ferry, you�ll see Coast Guard people patrolling, but I�ve never seen four people stand in one place that long. And I kind of joked to my friends, like, �Do you think it�s because of my t-shirt?� But I didn�t really believe that they would have made such a big deal about it. And we sat there for the half-hour ferry ride, and they didn�t move. And as I was getting off the boat, I was stopped by a security guard who said, you know, �Excuse me, Miss, but you better not wear that shirt on the ferry again.� And I was kind of taken aback. �Excuse me? You know, what are you talking about?� And he said, �Well, I don�t think it�s safe. This is a high-security area.� And, you know, I asked him, �Well, what�s unsafe about this shirt? What do you think it means?� And he didn�t actually comment on what the shirt meant. He just asked me, you know, �Isn't it in Arabic?� And I said, well, you know -- I just kind of looked at him incredulously. I couldn�t believe he was actually saying that. And he said, �Well, you remember what happened on that JetBlue flight?� referencing over the summer, when Raed Jarrar was wearing the same shirt boarding a JetBlue flight at JFK. And I said, �Yeah, I remember that incident. I think it was racial profiling, because they didn�t allow him to wear the shirt on the plane, simply because it was in Arabic, and they said they didn�t have a translator to tell them what it meant.� And he said, you know, �Well, obviously you�re not a threat to us, but someone else wearing that shirt might be.� And, you know, I asked him if he meant by that that, you know, an Arab wearing a shirt with Arabic script on it would be considered a terrorist. And he didn�t answer the question. He just told me again that I better not wear this shirt on the ferry. AMY GOODMAN: And what are you doing now about this? STEPHANIE SCHWARTZ: Well, just from talking to some other activists in the city, people are pretty outraged that this is going on, that the Coast Guard thinks they can just tell us what we can and cannot wear. It�s a pretty clear violation of free speech. So this afternoon at 5:00, there will be a group of us, all wearing this shirt, boarding the ferry to see what happens. And, you know, hopefully in numbers we�ll be able to get on the boat and not have any problems. But if we do have problems, I hope we�ll make a big stink about it and let it be known that the Coast Guard is not allowing people to wear shirts that express their opinions. AMY GOODMAN: Raed Jarrar, you started this a few weeks ago, or perhaps it was a month ago. For our viewers and listeners who are not familiar with what happened to you, could you briefly repeat the story of trying to get on a JetBlue flight at Kennedy Airport? RAED JARRAR: Yeah, I had a similar incident to what Stephanie was describing. I was stopped in the airport, and a number of officials from TSA and JetBlue and other agencies prevented me from going to my airplane, because I was wearing the t-shirt in both Arabic and English, and I was told in that time that wearing a t-shirt with Arabic script and going to an airport in the U.S. is like going to a bank and wearing a t-shirt that reads, �I�m a robber.� And after that, after I was intimidated and I felt threatened that I would get arrested or at least miss my airplane, I covered my t-shirt with a t-shirt that they bought for me, but the incident -- AMY GOODMAN: Wait, wait, wait. Can you explain that? Who went and bought a t-shirt for you? RAED JARRAR: A JetBlue employee ended up buying a t-shirt for me, because I refused to take off my t-shirt or put it upside-down. And then, after -- AMY GOODMAN: And what did the t-shirt say, that he bought for you? RAED JARRAR: She. She bought a t-shirt that says �New York,� just from the market. In fact, they had a small debate among them, the security forces -- the security guards, whether they should buy a t-shirt that reads, �I love New York,� or not. And then they decided that maybe I will be offended, because they said, "No, we don�t want to take him from one extreme to another?" And I asked them, �Why do you think that I don�t love New York if I was wearing an Arabic t-shirt?� And they did not answer. But we ended up just buying another t-shirt with, like, �New York� or something. And I covered my first t-shirt, and I felt really bad about it. I informed them that I�m not doing this as a compromise. I�m doing it, because I don�t want to get arrested, I don�t want to lose my flight, and I�m going to pursue the issue through legal organizations. But they did not stop there, in fact. They changed my seat from the beginning of the airplane, and they changed it from like maybe the third seat of the airplane to the last seat or the seat before the last. And they said that -- I asked why. I said, �It�s my right to choose my seat. If you have any limitations for Arabs or Muslims to pick their seats, you should inform me on your website.� And they said, �No.� They just mumbled something about a, you know, baby, like �We need the seat for another person,� or something. But I felt really bad, because this reminded me of what used to happen to African Americans in the �40s and �50s, where they used to be sent to the back of buses because there were black, and I felt that I�m being sent to the back of airplane because I�m an Arab and because I�m brown. AMY GOODMAN: Stephanie Schwartz, are you wearing this t-shirt because Raed Jarrar wore this t-shirt? STEPHANIE SCHWARTZ: I actually got the t-shirt before the JetBlue incident. I bought it at a protest this summer. We were in Washington, D.C., protesting Israel's crimes in Lebanon, and I saw the shirt, and I just thought, you know, what a great way for people to kind of speak out in a very simple way against the racial profiling that has been going on against Arabs and Muslims in this country and just to say, you know, we -- Arabs, Muslims and the people who support them -- won�t be silent. AMY GOODMAN: Are you Jewish? STEPHANIE SCHWARTZ: I am. AMY GOODMAN: Does that weigh in here? STEPHANIE SCHWARTZ: You know, I think I grew up, you know, with the same kind of Hebrew school education that I think a lot of Jewish kids grew up with, you know, kind of unquestioned support of everything that Israel does, and, you know, I think when the war in Iraq started, it started to bring out to me a lot of contradictions that, you know, that I had in my own politics, that how could I, you know, oppose the war in Iraq and support what Israel was doing in Palestine? And it just became clear to me that if I was going to have principled politics, I had to oppose both of those occupations and, you know, I decided it was time to actually speak out against the crimes that Israel is committing in Palestine and now in Lebanon. AMY GOODMAN: Raed, the fact that the Coast Guard on the ferry, the Staten Island Ferry, actually invoked what happened to you as a precedent for telling Stephanie she wouldn�t be able to wear this t-shirt anymore that has Arabic script above the �We will not be silent,� what is your response to that? RAED JARRAR: I am very shocked, in fact. I am very shocked to see how my incident, my oppression in JFK is being used as a precedent to justify oppressing more people. It makes me feel more responsible to take this case furthermore and try to make a precedent out of it, that you cannot oppress people and you cannot oppress the freedom of expression. I thought that people like security officers will feel ashamed of what happened and just people not use it as a victory that will justify repeating the same shameful incident to other people. AMY GOODMAN: Well, we�re going to leave it there. Raed Jarrar, Iraqi architect now living in this country. But a final question is, you said you are bringing legal action? Have you filed a lawsuit? RAED JARRAR: I have taken a number of legal steps with a number of organizations, like ADC, the Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee. They opened a number of official investigations in Homeland Security and JetBlue to reach to what happened, and I�m in contact with the ACLU to see whether we will take any further action. AMY GOODMAN: Raed Jarrar, thank you for joining us, and Stephanie Schwartz, for joining us, as well. Your protest today at 5:00 over at the Staten Island Ferry. We�ll be covering it and bringing our audience the developments tomorrow. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z Freedom of speech/expression = terrorism Source: Democracy Now |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Groundhog Boy Here's the story about the JFK/JetBlue incident - http://www.parkerstudio.com/AAW/JFK_story.html |
now theyre gonna quash the first amendment? 
jesus. sucks to be american thats for sure.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shaolin_Z I barely skimmed over it, more like read the title, first/last few and lines. What's your point? EDIT: Doesn't seem terribly different form the DemNow article. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN now theyre gonna quash the first amendment? jesus. sucks to be american thats for sure. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.